Wow, this is interesting. While a hundred years ago, creationists denied evolution, recently they've had to concede some evolution. Hence the micro/macro distinction. A few of the smarter creationists (not quite a complete oxymoron) have even relented on common descent in the last few years, the evidence being so powerful. Yet they maintain some fiddling was still required, at some point. It looks like DaveScot is actually in that camp:

Quote

#

Red

I think you’re conflating macro-evolution with Darwinian evolution. The evidence in support of descent with modification from a universal common ancestor over the course of billions of years is compelling. Logically arguable but practically undeniable. If you argue against that you get laughed at and I’ll be hard pressed to suppress a chuckle myself. However, descent with modification over billions of years from a common ancestor doesn’t speak to whether the process was guided or unguided, planned or unplanned. Here there is compelling evidence, focused upon most famously and contemporaneously by Dembski and Behe, that there almost certainly must be planning and guidance required to produce some of the complex patterns we find in the machinery of life. The source of the planning and guidance may well be outside the scope of science and there’s no scientific evidence to lead us in any particular direction. But detecting a design and identifying the source of design are two different things and the former is in no way dependent on the latter.

Comment by DaveScot — January 23, 2006 @ 12:28 pm

Most ID Creationists have thrown in on their micro/macro distinction, and so this is going to be yet another source of conflict on Uncommon Pissant.

Wow, this is interesting. While a hundred years ago, creationists denied evolution, recently they've had to concede some evolution. Hence the micro/macro distinction. A few of the smarter creationists (not quite a complete oxymoron) have even relented on common descent in the last few years, the evidence being so powerful. Yet they maintain some fiddling was still required, at some point. It looks like DaveScot is actually in that camp:

Well, keep in mind that some ID people have accepted common descent, and some ID people have accepted some form of evolution -- but not all of them have gotten the memo. For every one such person who has, there are ten who still say that evolution is ridiculous, common descent is impossible, there's no evidence for transitional fossils, and that speciation has never been observed. As people have pointed out at PT, no IDC idea EVER gets thrown out completely -- once any IDC talking point is launched, it essentially lingers forever in 'folk intelligent design' circles. Whether it's been soundly refuted or even if the DI tells people not to use it anymore, it doesn't matter.

This is one of the most funny things about Intelligent Design -- its complete lack of consensus or standardization of any kind.

--------------"Rich is just mad because he thought all titties had fur on them until last week when a shorn transvestite ruined his childhood dreams by jumping out of a spider man cake and man boobing him in the face lips." - Erasmus

Woo, DaveScot has pissed some people off with his possible acceptance of "macroevolution" and common descent.

Quote

#

Red

I don’t like to be so blunt but if the ID movement doesn’t get its head & tail wired together and accept as settled science that evolution happened, that only the mechanism of random mutation as the sole source of variation is in dispute, then its doomed to the dustbin of history. A million scientists aren’t entirely wrong. They got a lot of the story right. Their only error is foisting a notion that evolution is an unguided, unplanned process. That’s purely a dogmatic concoction driven by an atheistic worldview and in denial of some very compelling evidence to the contrary - namely the patterns in the machinery of life which defy explanation by any plausible unintelligent self-assembly mechanism. Maybe such mechanism will be discovered in the future but for the nonce the benefit of doubt must go to design in any rational, objective analysis.

Comment by DaveScot — January 23, 2006 @ 33 pm#

Quote

Bling

Natural selection isn’t even operative in small isolated populations. It’s overwhelmed by genetic drift. To say that speciation is the result of natural selection exhibits shallow knowledge depth in the modern synthesis. Genetic drift is quite capable of speciation. The question is whether there’s any new information required for speciation or is it just a matter of rearranging the deck chairs. It looks to me like most speciation is a mere rearrangement of the deck chairs - a different expression of information that was already there in the genome in question.

In any case, the bottom line remains that no one has observed RM+NS creating any novel cell type, tissue type, organ, or body plan. It’s an huge extrapolation to assign RM+NS massive creative power never once observed in over a century of trying to observe it in nature or reproduce it in a laboratory.

Comment by DaveScot — January 23, 2006 @ 3:11 pm#

Quote

DaveScot said: >.[sic]

I do not agree at all with that. Where is all that evidence? To believe in common ancestry is to believe in macroevolution. Both are false and without any proof. That’s a strange error ID supporters should not do.

DaveScot has heaped scorn on many (if not most) ID supporters in the past week. No wonder they're rebelling against him.

Quote

From a letter to the Kansas Board of Education from Elie Wiesel and 37 other Nobel laureates:Logically derived from confirmable evidence, evolution is understood to be the result of an unguided, unplanned process of random variation and natural selection.

Quote

DaveScot wrote regarding the above definition:As all of us who don’t cling to strawman versions of ID know, the only bone we have to pick with that definition is the unguided, unplanned part. We are of the position that evolution, in part or in whole, was a guided or planned process. (From http://www.uncommondescent.com/index.php/archives/689 )

Quote

DaveScot again, scolding Red Reader:I think you’re conflating macro-evolution with Darwinian evolution. The evidence in support of descent with modification from a universal common ancestor over the course of billions of years is compelling. Logically arguable but practically undeniable. If you argue against that you get laughed at and I’ll be hard pressed to suppress a chuckle myself. (From http://www.uncommondescent.com/index.php/archives/697 )

True to form, Dave manages to alienate many (if not most) ID supporters by labeling their skepticism of common descent as laughable, disparaging them for trying to "cling to a strawman version of ID." Whether he realizes it or not, he also slams ID leaders who reject common descent, including Jonathan Wells, Paul Nelson and Stephen Meyer.

Best of all, he manages to contradict himself. Here is Dave responding to a comment of mine on December 24, 2005:

Dave manages to alienate many (if not most) ID supporters by labeling their skepticism of common descent as laughable

Not to mention J.A.D.'s recent common descent contribution...

And yet the name of the freakin' blog is UNcommon Descent. Is Dr. "Intelligent design is just the Logos theology of John's Gospel restated in the idiom of information theory" Dembski paying attention to what's going on over there? Oh wait, he's back to posting half the articles.

Dave claims to be an agnostic but he insists a designers' signature is everywhere. Hmmm..Since he rejects the God concept he must be from the ID Klingon Camp that proposes a time traveler or space alien done it. He has yet to clarify whether he leans towards a time traveler or a space alien.

Oh, and uncommon dissent is still hostile to Christian ideas:

Quote

...I deleted two comments that appeared to be headed towards a dispute about the historical accuracy of the bible... Comment by DaveScot — January 23, 2006 @ 3:18 pm

Earlier, stevestory quoted a commenter on UD who suggested that DaveScot give up his role as moderator:

Quote

Hey Dave, I haven’t seen what they’re saying and don’t intend to, but as someone who’s pretty pro ID, I would appreciate a rethink of your moderation here. Perhaps just leaving it all to someone else would be best. The signal to noise ratio here has changed since you’ve been moderating, and I’m sorta tiring hearing about you all the time and seeing others complain about your moderation, or you telling us they are.

The commenter's name was 'Shane', and he complained that his post had been deleted the first time around.

Guess what? It's been deleted for a second time.

Complain about DaveScot, no matter how honestly or constructively, and you're out of there.

Like I said, Dave, you're doing great! Keep at it!

--------------And the set of natural numbers is also the set that starts at 0 and goes to the largest number. -- Joe G

The number of views is higher than normal and I'm sure some IDers from Uncommon Pissant are coming over here. So here's an additional message to you guys:

While Dembski banned criticism like crazy, DaveScot has gone nuts, even banning criticism from you christian supporters of ID. I've seen three today. If you like this situation, fine. But if you don't, complain to the guy who owns the blog.

In fact, you might want to navigate one level up and start up a thread on After the Bar Closes to discuss ID. There you can post freely any criticism which comes to mind, as long as you're not persistently rude. You won't have to worry about being frivolously banned.

Oh, and btw, you might be banned at Uncommon Descent and not know it--one thing they do is set the software to hide your comment from everyone but you--that way you don't complain, because you don't know your posts are hidden to others. Just FYI.

pretty soon (if not already) he'll have deleted more IDers than Panda's Thumb.

He probably passed that landmark his first day.

--------------"Rich is just mad because he thought all titties had fur on them until last week when a shorn transvestite ruined his childhood dreams by jumping out of a spider man cake and man boobing him in the face lips." - Erasmus

DaveScot has linked to this thread to have another whinge. That's probably why all the IDiots are coming over here.

This is DaveScot's current whinging:

Quote

Not only have they banned me from commenting at “After The Bar Closes” but they banned my IP address from even READING the forum. Yes Virginia, you heard right. These paranoid censoring fascists don’t even want me to read what they’re saying no less reply to it.

Is this true? Or is this some persecution fantasy?

--------------"Rich is just mad because he thought all titties had fur on them until last week when a shorn transvestite ruined his childhood dreams by jumping out of a spider man cake and man boobing him in the face lips." - Erasmus

DaveScot has linked to this thread to have another whinge. That's probably why all the IDiots are coming over here.

This is DaveScot's current whinging:

Quote

Not only have they banned me from commenting at “After The Bar Closes” but they banned my IP address from even READING the forum. Yes Virginia, you heard right. These paranoid censoring fascists don’t even want me to read what they’re saying no less reply to it.

Is this true? Or is this some persecution fantasy?

This beggars belief!

DS complaining about censorship. ROFL.How many people has DS banned/Edited/deleted recently?

This may be nothing new to you veteran PTers, but I'm seeing John Davison in action for the first time and I'm finding it quite amusing. After a detailed description of how to induce "semi-meiotic" reproduction, John declares:

Quote

Now pay attention FUNDAMENTALISTS EVERYWHERE WHEREVER YOU MAY BE to what I am about to say. This expermental procedure could offer a rational, scientifically based explanation for both the Immaculate Conception of Mary as well as a potential demonstration of the Virgin Birth of Christ. It has already been done with frogs. Don’t forget who told you so. That does not mean that I necessarily subscribe to either dogma although I may have a death bed conversion. I haven’t decided yet. Now lets get cracking with some real experiments and stop all this empty rhetoric.

I'll bet the Christians on UD are loving that. Who invited him back? Oh, yeah... it was DaveScot.

--------------And the set of natural numbers is also the set that starts at 0 and goes to the largest number. -- Joe G

I appreciate your conviction and I understand how important it is to you.But I’m with Dr. Dembski on this.

I’ve read Denton and Behe and they are convincing.

In my opinion, the concept of “irreducible complexity” simply nukes in toto the concept of macro-evolution.

For analogy, the design of Da Vinci’s “Last Supper” and its production are complete in one life time. All of Da Vinci’s paintings bear a striking resemblance, but the one painting on the wall of the dining hall of Santa Maria delle Grazie in Milan was drawn from raw materials right then and there: he didn’t assemble parts of paintings he had gathered from elsewhere.

Micro-evolution, I agree all day long. It’s a fact, no question.We see it in action on every cattle ranch in Texas. (I’m from Texas.)

Comment by Red Reader — January 23, 2006 @ 65 pm#

Quote

Dave

What evidence do you use to prove that macroevolution is “settled science”? Can you give me some resources (web sites, papers, books, etc.) which site evidence used in your proofs? In other words, please direct me to resources that would debunk the theory that the human body, for example, wasn’t designed in a day instead of billions of years.

Respectfully,Saxe

Comment by saxe17 — January 23, 2006 @ 6:24 pm

LOL! Now the anti-"macro"evolution nuts on UD are asking DaveScot for evidence which proves his case. Let's see how successful DaveScot at convincing IDers of the facts of common descent and "macro" evolution.

Oh, and btw, you might be banned at Uncommon Descent and not know it--one thing they do is set the software to hide your comment from everyone but you--that way you don't complain, because you don't know your posts are hidden to others. Just FYI.

How to tell: If the number of comments displayed at the top of the comments section (i.e. "23 comments") is different than the number of comments you can see, then you've been sent to coventry, the land of "Only you can see your posts."

Arden Chatfield: He probably has been IP banned from this forum because he was such a bad poster and a bad guy, but this happens all the time on forums across the internet. He's making it out to be worse than it is by describing it in a vivid and entertaining prose style .

LOL! Now the anti-"macro"evolution nuts on UD are asking DaveScot for evidence which proves his case. Let's see how successful DaveScot at convincing IDers of the facts of common descent and "macro" evolution.

I offered Dave some assistance, but my comment was deleted:

Quote

Hey Dave,

You want some help convincing Red Reader and Saxe of the truth of common descent?

You seem a bit beleaguered lately.

Regards,Keith S.

--------------And the set of natural numbers is also the set that starts at 0 and goes to the largest number. -- Joe G

I just use the regular Ikonboard facility for an "IP ban". While the implementation could have been coded to simply restrict posting, maybe Springer's report of no access at all to the bulletin board here is correct. In any case, the correct people to talk to about the behavior of the software when a banned IP connects are the Ikonboard programmers at Jarvis Entertainment Group. Of course, ownership transfers have since taken place, and I'm not sure that there is a good suggestion service for the iB software now.

He probably has been IP banned from this forum because he was such a bad poster and a bad guy, but this happens all the time on forums across the internet. He's making it out to be worse than it is by describing it in a vivid and entertaining prose style .

Well, he's not all that entertaining...

A pity, I don't relish having him posting here, but it would be nice if he could at least see us all laughing at him.

But hey -- it just occurs to me -- if he posted here, wouldn't he then have to ban himself ? ? ?

The performance art that is UD would then be perfected!

--------------"Rich is just mad because he thought all titties had fur on them until last week when a shorn transvestite ruined his childhood dreams by jumping out of a spider man cake and man boobing him in the face lips." - Erasmus

There is quite a lot of dissent amongst ID supporters over at Uncommon Dissent, surprisingly. I think despite all the banning and deleting, with B.Dembski no longer doing the editing, I think it has allowed the contrary opinions amongst ID supporters to come out for all of us to see.

Given DaveScot's waffling on various issues, such as common descent and macroevolution, I would like to offer up that DaveScot really has no position on these things, except that everyone else is somehow wrong. I wouldn't be surprised that after the midnight coop DaveScot starts banning B.Dembski as well. I think DaveScot is starved for attention, obsessive, and does this stuff for emotional reasons, purely. I think he's gone over to the UD blog to try to gain acceptance with someone. Who wants to wager that he has no friends that he's actually met? But now when in control, he's just resumed the vitriol again.

I am very glad that DaveScot has given his position on common descent and macroevolution, it will be nice to see the UD folks grill him. Because then he's going to grill them back, and they will have nothing to stand on themselves. I was trying to figure out their positions, and now that I won't be able to, DaveScot will do it for me!

Y'know, I'm still completely confused about how creationism ever took hold within Christianity. What on earth does a literal interpretation of Genesis have to do with Jesus or with the New Testament? And, in fact, despite Genesis being the first book of the Pentateuch, it seems that very, very few Jews are either YECs or IDists.

Y'know, I'm still completely confused about how creationism ever took hold within Christianity. What on earth does a literal interpretation of Genesis have to do with Jesus or with the New Testament?

I'm fascinated by the question, especially since I was raised as a literalist Christian and then had to reason my way out of it in adolescence. Ocellated (a Christian who accepts evolution) has a post on this topic on his blog. I added my two cents' worth in a comment.http://www.ocellated.com/2006....olution

--------------And the set of natural numbers is also the set that starts at 0 and goes to the largest number. -- Joe G